Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: sparky999255 Date: Dec 10, 2007 3:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

Damn, I almost forgot to address your description of the Kraft's. You suggest that the NFL must have all of the tapes because Kraft relinquished the rights to Christian Peter. You say that Peter was drafted and "it turned out that while at Nebraska Mr. Peter had been arrested for various offenses."

It didn't "turn out" as you state it. It was a known fact. That information was known prior to them drafting him. He had been convicted four times prior to the draft. Kraft and the Patriots saw an opportunity to get a talented football player for a 5th round bargain. It wasn't until there was a public outcry (and rumor has it his wife demanded it) that Kraft did anything about it. It was a public/private relations move, nothing more. Kraft didn't care even though he had that information prior to drafting him.

I guess if there was more public outcry about the taping then maybe I could trust that the Kraft's would take care of it. Or maybe if his wife got involved.

Please see this article from Pulitzer Prize winner Eileen McNamara:
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/commentary/works/4.html

Or this one
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/16/SPGE9I9ASL1.DTL

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: headgdhead Date: Dec 10, 2007 4:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

Sparky,

You keep calling it cheating but cannot state what unfair advantage was gained or disadvantage placed on the opponent. So a quote from the "Game Operations Manual", that no one seems to have a copy of, is your proof of cheating! Stealing coaching signals goes on all the time! It can be done in many ways besides videotaping. If that is your definition of cheating why aren't all "signal stealing" methods banned as well? You have to have more than that, no?

So your position is Kraft, who has built a very successful family business on integrity, rolled the dice on a known criminal and wasted a 5th round pick. I need no further proof that you are clueless about the Kraft's and the way Patriot football operations were run under Parcell's. You might recall Parcell's tenure in New England ended shortly thereafter as Kraft stripped Parcells of some of his responsibilities. Try again.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: sparky999255 Date: Dec 10, 2007 5:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

Where did you get this definition of cheating? You ask me to, "state what unfair advantage was gained or disadvantage placed on the opponent." First, are you suggesting that taping the signals, in a deliberate violation of league rules, is not cheating unless it is somehow proven that they used them? They knowingly violated the rules in an effort to gain a competitive advantage, that's cheating. What else would you call that? I believe that they did use them, but it doesn't matter. Are you suggesting that stealing the signals via videotape in an effort to know what defense the other team is going to run does not create "an unfair advantage?" Please explain this to me. If your contention is that we need proof of how the videotapes were used to create an advantage in order for it to be cheating then I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on our definitions of cheating. I understand cheating is a harsh word and I don't use it lightly. I only choose to use it for those things I deem as serious offenses.


"Then you proceed to say (just like every Pats fan I've had this discussion with), "Stealing coaching signals goes on all the time! It can be done in many ways besides videotaping. If this is your definition of cheating why aren't all "signal stealing" methods banned as well?"

My definition of cheating is not stealing signals. It is similar to most dictionary definitions. i.e. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game. I don't care if a team is stealing signals as long as they follow the league rules. I hope you're not trying to say that these other methods would be as efficient as videotaping them. Unlike these other methods, videotaping signals is banned because it is way too efficient and would create a competitive advantage. Please explain where I'm wrong.

As far as Mr. Kraft is concerned. I'm sure he's a decent guy & I'm not questioning his integrity. You say, "So your position is Kraft, who has built a very successful family business on integrity, rolled the dice on a known criminal and wasted a 5th round pick." What? That's not my position. That's what happened. The fact that Christian Peter had been arrested and convicted multiple times wasn't and couldn't be hidden. Are you trying to say that Kraft had no knowledge of Peter's background? Are you saying that the Patriots didn't do their homework and check his background? Are you trying to say that Parcell's ignored Kraft's wishes and drafted Peter anyways? Please explain it to me. Also, please explain the relevance this has to proving why I should believe that all of the tapes and notes from said tapes were turned over.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: headgdhead Date: Dec 11, 2007 6:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

Let me try again. No where does it state that you cannot steal the other teams signals but for some reason you still consider it cheating. I'm saying show me. The act of video taping is not in and of itself cheating. Does it go against league policy? Yes. But it is not cheating. Why does every coach in the league cover their mouths when talking on the sidelines? Are they paranoid or is everybody reading their lips, "stealing their signals" and cheating??? OMFG!!! Grow up.

Oh yea and the Game Operations Manual does ot pertain to "The Rules" of the game. Its' primary focus is Security and the protection of NFL intellectual property. God forbid any unauthorized video of the NFL ever got out to places like YouTube. Right Stealz. Hmmm according to Sparky you cheated for the Colts!!! Cheater, cheater, cheater...

Let me try again on Kraft. He inherited Parcells from the prior ownership. He was/is not a football guy in the sense of a Jerry Jones. Parcells RAN the football operations and made the decision to draft Peter. As a fan I loved the pick!!! Kraft made the decision to cut the guy and laid down the law to Parcells by dividing up his football operations responsibilities. After the '96 season Parcells was gone, complaining as he left "If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries." Kraft's integrity is unimpeachable.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: buffalo69 Date: Dec 10, 2007 7:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

The Patriots, knowingly ignored a letter from the commissioner addressing the stealing of opposing teams signals after having been busted the previous year for the very same offense. That's a fact, not an opinion. You can argue it any which way you want Hedgehead, but the facts remain. The Patriots cheated, are known cheaters, and the evidence was destroyed, because the cheating was far more widespread than just videotaping signals, and as far as I'm concerned tarnish their Super Bowl victories. As far as Peters goes, don't pretend the Patriots didn't know about his previous troubles with the law, because that would mean the Patriots were asleep at the job when it came to the draft. The other guys 100% right... you thought you were getting excellent talent with your fifth round pick, and strictly as a public-relations nightmare he was cut, pure and simple. And by the way... I'd like to pull Belechic's hooded sweatshirt over his head and beat him with the tube sock full of wood screws.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Stealz Date: Dec 10, 2007 7:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cry Me a River

Hey headgdhead, remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJfhcYHYsOc&feature=related

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)